blender_mesh

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains operations like 'delete_object: Remove objects from scene by name' and parameter ranges (e.g., radius 0.01-100.0). However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., undo behavior, scene activation, or whether operations require an active scene). Behavioral traits beyond the obvious are not fully elaborated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the rationale and a clear summary, followed by a bulleted list of operations. It is about 20 lines, which is appropriate given the tool's complexity. The rationale could be seen as slightly extraneous, but it does not harm conciseness significantly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's 9 operations and 9 parameters, the description covers all operations with parameter requirements and defaults. Since an output schema exists (though not shown), return value details are not mandatory. The description is complete for an agent to invoke the tool, though it could mention that operations affect the current Blender scene.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping operations (create, duplicate, delete) and specifying which parameters each operation requires (e.g., 'duplicate_object requires source_name'). This contextual mapping goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create and manipulate mesh objects in Blender with comprehensive primitive support.' It lists 9 specific operations (e.g., create_cube, delete_object), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like blender_camera or blender_animation. The portmanteau rationale further emphasizes consolidation, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context for when to use this tool by listing its operations and the portmanteau rationale (to prevent tool explosion). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like blender_materials. The implied usage is for mesh creation/manipulation, but exclusions are missing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.